I agree. I use cURL for more reasons than socket license requirements. If the server-client communication does not have to be synchronous with your business app then it will allow you to run external batch jobs. CASS certification, for example, can be done in the background for new addresses right before a bulk mailing. For typical real-time scenarios, it takes the "uh oh" factor out of socket API mods/bugs when you decide to upgrade or apply patches. I trust cURL more than any built-in socket interface and it offers a lot of extras that often do not exist cross-flavor like client SSL support and programmatic authentication methods.
Regards, ---------------------------------------- Glen Batchelor IT Director/CIO/CTO All-Spec Industries phone: (910) 332-0424 fax: (910) 763-5664 E-mail: webmas...@all-spec.com Web: http://www.all-spec.com Blog: http://blog.all-spec.com ---------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:42 PM > To: 'U2 Users List' > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > Any phantom that uses the sockets api - or a derivative of it like the > http > or soap api will become an interactive phantom - the reason being it is in > some way interacting with the outside world. Of course the way round it > would be to use curl instead ... > > > > > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton > Sent: 31 January 2011 15:05 > To: 'U2 Users List' > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > > > Thanks for the feedback folks. The reason I was doing this query was to > review the 'reason' for the recent license changes that make CallHTTP > 'consume' a seat if it is used within a 'phantom' process. I didn't say > WHY > I was interested get 'genuine' usage comments. Like many of you, I use > CallHTTP to get a piece of data from a remote machine (in my case, a > UniVerse server is validating a code from a UniData machine). But with a > recent update to UniVerse, we started having weird 'failures' -- turns out > it failed when all the 'seats' on the UniVerse machine were in use, and > the > Phantom attempted a CallHTTP lookup. Blam! Dead phantom! > > I read all the uses people posted, and unless I was mistaken, no one was > seriously using CallHTTP for the purpose of serving multiple 'logical > users'. It appears everyone is using CallHTTP as a way to gather a piece > of > data that could have just as easily been in a file on the local disk drive > if the machine you have could have limitless resources. In my use, and > apparently most of yours, to call CallHTTP 'interactive' would be the same > as calling a disk read 'interactive'. > > Here is the link for the 'business case' for making CallHTTP 'eat a seat' > when used in a Phantom. I wanted to see if the logic made sense for the > CallHTTP feature. My point to Rocket will be that someone could make a > phantom into a 'multi-user' server by using READ/WRITEs from Text Files -- > yet those are 'allowed' -- so trying to 'lock down' the server against a > POSSIBLE misuse of the license terms by removing needed features seems > counterproductive. UNLESS, that is, you're going to lock down EVERY > POSSIBLE way to misuse the system - Meaning, phantoms should not be able > to > READ or WRITE at all. Heck, phantoms should not even EXIST since their > existence could lead to license misuse! > > https://u2tc.rocketsoftware.com/rsp- > portal/rsp/solutionDetail.asp?id=0002370 > 1?sterm=iphantom&exact=&searchAction=doSolutionSearch.asp&catFilter=02n400 > 00 > 000Tqmn&oType= > > Am I out on a limb here saying that CallHTTP should probably not cause a > Phantom to go iPhantom? I mean, Rocket can do whatever the heck they > want, > it's their sandbox after all and we really have no choice but to suck it > up... But is the logic they employed flawed as I think it is? Or am I > just > a loon? (Hmmmm.. really, the two questions are not mutually exclusive I > guess... But you get the point... ) I'm interested in comments on the > topic, if any. > > DW > > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _____ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
